Trump
COVID-19 Executive Actions Woefully Inadequate, Legally Dangerous
Trump’s new
executive actions should deeply concern all Americans.
They fall dramatically
short of responding effectively to the enormous need across the country due to
COVID-19 and the deep recession.
And, by bypassing
Congress on major budget and tax decisions and trying to override federal laws
on the use of federal funds, they weaken our democracy by shredding
longstanding norms of governance and potentially violating the Constitution.
When negotiations
between top Administration officials and congressional leaders of both parties
over the next economic relief package began last week, Democrats stood behind
the House-passed, $3.4 trillion Heroes Act while the White House and Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell proposed a $1 trillion package (keeping its
price tag low by leaving out nutrition assistance, rental assistance, and more
than a very small amount of fiscal relief, and by cutting federal unemployment
benefits by two-thirds).
After several days of
talks that reportedly prompted some concessions on both sides, however, the
White House assumed a “my way or the highway” hard line, insisting that the
package not exceed $1 trillion.
The White House
apparently decided to derail the negotiations to set the stage for Trump’s
executive actions (which, based on Trump’s press conference, appears to
be motivated in part by political calculations related to his re-election
campaign).
That we have reached
this point is a national tragedy.
The executive actions
raise serious legal issues and may not withstand legal challenge. Nor is it
clear that the Administration actually can implement them—in particular, that
it can secure the funding and use the funds as the executive actions direct.
Order on unemployment benefits unworkable,
potentially illegal. Of note is the
requirement that states pay 25 percent of the $400-a-week unemployment benefit
supplement that the Presidential directive claims to provide—even as today’s
executive actions provide no fiscal relief to states despite the massive
pandemic-driven budget shortfalls they face.
With most of the limited funding that the CARES Act provided to states through the Coronavirus Relief Fund already spoken for, the 25 percent requirement will force states to choose between letting the federal supplemental unemployment benefits end entirely and slashing other parts of their budgets—likely including laying off teachers, health care workers, and others—to find the funds for the new match while balancing their budgets at the same time, as virtually all states are legally required to do.
And even if every state could find new money to cover 25 percent of these unemployment benefit costs, the benefits apparently would run out after about six weeks.
The Presidential
directive calls for using up to $44 billion in Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) funds for the 75 percent of costs that the federal government
would cover, an amount that would be exhausted sometime in September.
Beyond that, the
executive actions leave enormous gaps that only a bipartisan legislative
package can address.
Nothing for COVID-19 prevention. For starters, the executive actions provide no
new funds for testing, contact tracing, and other measures to combat the spread
of COVID-19.
Nothing for food. And, although nearly 30 million adults
reported that their households didn’t have enough to eat during the week ending
July 21st, Census estimates show, today’s actions contain nothing for food
assistance.
States not only get no help, but are stuck
with unexpected burden. In
addition, state and local governments face enormous budget shortfalls due to
COVID-19 and the recession, as noted above, and many of them have delayed
implementing draconian budget cuts as they awaited the outcome of White
House-congressional negotiations over the next economic relief package, which
was widely expected to include significant new state fiscal relief.
Instead of providing
such relief, however, the executive actions make this problem worse by trying
to pressure states to put up billions of dollars to help finance the
supplemental unemployment benefits. States will now have little choice but to
proceed with severe budget cuts, likely including cuts in programs that provide
basic services for tens of millions of people.
Nothing for schools. The executive actions also offer no help for
schools, which face substantial new costs to make their facilities safe when
they can open and to facilitate effective online learning when students attend
school online, in whole or in part.
Nothing for the Postal Service. Not surprisingly, the actions provide no funds
for the beleaguered U.S. Postal Service or for safeguarding the integrity of
the coming elections (which also may help explain why the White House
apparently sought to avoid a deal).
Order will not stop evictions. Even in areas that the executive actions
cover, they are woefully inadequate. Millions of Americans are behind on rent,
and the President claimed at his press conference that he is extending the
federal evictions moratorium and providing rental assistance.
But the executive
order on housing does neither.
It merely directs the
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary to take legally permissible steps
to help people avoid eviction or foreclosure, and the order notably doesn’t
include extending the evictions moratorium in its list of actions for HUD to
consider.
Similarly, the order
simply asks the HUD and Treasury secretaries to try to identify any federal
funds that the Administration could use to provide financial assistance to
renters and homeowners, implying that the White House hasn’t yet been able to
identify funds that they can legally tap for this purpose.
Payroll tax deferral doesn’t help workers, but
does hurt Social Security and Medicare. The use of these executive actions, as compared to a bipartisan
legislative agreement, also will damage the economy. The notion that a
several-month deferral of payroll taxes will significantly aid the economy is
laughable.
Employers and workers
will still owe the taxes and have to pay them at a later date, so they will be
reluctant to spend the money now and, in turn, help stimulate the economy.
Will not create jobs. Moreover, employer decisions on hiring and
investment will be driven by the demand for the goods and services they
produce, not whether they owe these taxes now or later.
COVID-19 and the deep
recession have caused deep and widespread hardship and, due to longstanding
inequities, Black, Latino, immigrant, and Indigenous communities have been hit
especially hard.
The failure to enact
measures to substantially reduce hardship and bolster the economy will make
racial disparities, which the pandemic and recession already are exacerbating,
even starker.
To all of these
shortcomings and gaps, add the enormous uncertainty that the executive actions
will create because they are legally suspect and because of serious questions
about whether the Administration actually can implement aspects of them.
There simply is no
shortcut to the hard work of crafting a bipartisan economic relief package that
meets the needs of a reeling economy, struggling families, and cash-strapped
states and localities.
And under our constitutional system, the President and Congress together—not the President acting alone—have the power to appropriate funds and decide how to use them.
The President cannot
substitute executive actions for congressional action and cannot, acting
unilaterally, provide the strong help that families and the economy need.
To help a nation
suffering through one of its gravest crises in many decades, the White House
should withdraw the executive actions, return to the negotiating table, and do
what’s needed to reach the deal that our nation so badly needs.
Robert Greenstein is the founder and President
of the Center
on Budget and Policy Priorities. He is considered an expert on
the federal budget and a range of domestic policy issues, including
anti-poverty programs and various aspects of tax and health care policy.